Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
However, with that said, I can't just excuse the young man and what he did. He contributed to what happened by his own
STUPID choices. My comments, that people have said mean "I blame him", are inaccurate. I say what I do because I do not feel he is really a victim. He is a dumb-arse criminal who made bad choices which lead to him getting roughed up when he finally got caught. The only thing he is owed is that the Officer face charges and serve time. He doesn't deserve a monetary settlement IMO.
So in short the Officer should be charged and go to jail for the excessive force/assault. The young man should face charges and go to jail for illegal drug possession and running from the Police. To me that is where it should end. The young man shouldn't be awarded damages in court. He shares responsibility for what happened and he shouldn't profit from it.
I would agree if the Kids injury resulted from a fall or tackle while being chased.
What happened was a result of VERY improper behavior from the police officer.
No, the kid should NOT profit from the ASSAULT (he was assaulted) but he should not be out of pocket for the dental work (in addition to the Drug, evading arrest charges he may face**) either.
I'm sure no matter what the Dental work costs, I'm sure the kid would rather have just kept his own teeth.
I do not abide with the notion; If you don't do what a Police officer says, stuff like this might happen to you.
As if that is OK.
It's the officers job to apprehend the suspect with the MINIMUM force required.
What happened here was deliberate and un-provocked
**Please remember the presumption of innocence.
The young man is not innocent however and we know that. We know for a fact he had illegal drugs and we know for a fact that he ran from the Police Officer who stomped him earlier that day. What the heck does presumption of innocence have to do with this case? This case/story/situation is pretty clearly defined for us so we know what happened. Presumption of innocence is for a case where we don't know what really happened such as with the Cosby allegations. Don't get it???
Yes, the Officer stomping the young man in the face was deliberate. No argument from me hence my many comments that he deserves to face charges and jail time. However, you can hardly call it "unprovoked". Uncalled for is more accurate IMO. Unprovoked though? You can't be serious.
Saying what happened was unprovoked is excusing the young man's actions earlier in the day. The truth is he actually DID provoke the Officer by running rom him. That is why I do not feel he deserves any kind of settlement and why he should answer fully for his own crimes that day. Don't poke the bear and then complain when you get mauled.
This young man is not a victim and he shouldn't be called that nor treated as such. He is a dumb criminal.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/presumption_of_innocence
Basically, it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
A cop is not a judge, Jury and does not punish!
To me ,there are two separate incidents here. A Dumb kid that 'seemingly' commits crime and runs.
A cop that (according to what we see in the video) uses violence on a citizen offering no resistance.
The kid lost some teeth, but what if his neck were broken? Would that change things?
I assume your "it has EVERYTHING to do with it" comment is about presumption of innocence? You do not explain what "it" is so I have to assume here. I can't think of what else you would be talking of in response to my comments to you but for that though. Therefore I will proceed as such...
I am sorry but presumption of innocence has absolutely no bearing on this situation. The young man did the things he did and the Officer did what he did. There is no doubt or question about what each of them did. Matter of record at this point. There is nothing "seemingly about it" as you put it re: the young man. He did have illegal drugs in his possession which is a crime and running from the Police is a crime as well. he committed crimes and 2 big ones to boot. Nothing seemingly about it.
Why would I presume the young man is innocent of illegal drug possession and running from the Police when it is established he actually had illegal drugs on him and he did in fact run from the Police? He even admitted it. He was caught in the store calling his Dad for help because he had illegal drugs on his person and he had run from the Police earlier because of them. I see nothing that is unclear here? I certainly wouldn't presume the Officer is innocent of excessive force either as we have video evidence of what he did.
So, presumption of innocence wouldn't apply to either of the individuals involved for our discussion purposes on this site. Now, if you mean the Officer should have applied it to the young man I have to say it doesn't apply there either. The young man ran away from him. Again, there is no question or gray area as far as the facts go for what each of these two individuals did.
Presumption of innocence, or innocent until proven guilty, always applies initially. However, at some point when the facts are known and the person clearly committed criminal acts it no longer applies. In this case neither of them has any presumption of innocence about them because we know what they each did with certainty. Both are clearly as guilty of their crimes as it gets. Presumption of innocence applies when you don't know. In this case we do know.
I agree with you that the Officer is not the judge and jury. I have never defended his actions. Why must you and others keep throwing what he did at me as if I am defending it. I am not. He was wrong and deserves to go to jail for it. We
ALL agree the Officer was wrong so there is no need to keep hammering me about how what he did is wrong. Where the disagreement is seems to come down to were the young man's actions crimes deserving of charges and/or jail time and whether or not he deserves a settlement for being kicked in the face by the Officer. No one is defending the Officer or his actions.
We have a situation where 2 people tied together in a situation BOTH committed crimes. I say let them both pay for what they did. While the young man did not deserve the boot to the face he shouldn't have had illegal rugs and he shouldn't have run. Therefore, he shares in the responsibility for what happened to him. Now ay he should be rewarded for that and get off on his crimes or even worse receive money from the city.
As I said earlier all the young man deserves for what happened to him is having the Officer charged with assault and hopefully he goes to jail. The young man does not deserve money nor should his crimes be negated by what the Officer did. he should face charges and jail time as well. he is not a victim he is a criminal and he should not benefit from that. If he didn't have illegal rugs and he hadn't run from the Police the Officer wouldn't have lost control and stomped him. Period and end of story for me.